Friday, March 18, 2005

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF THOSE WHO THREATEN IT

Mark this day on your perpetual calendar. It is another day that should and will live on in infamy... the day that the courts succeeded in establishing another group against which they have issued a LICENSE TO KILL.

On another day just as dastardly, January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval for the LICENSE TO KILL all unborn babies if their mother so desired. March 18, 2005 will now forever be known as the day the courts forced upon us the 'right' to kill persons that suffer severe injury or illness after birth. Today the court-ordered death sentence of Terri Schindler-Schiavo will be carried out.

The Federalist Patriot, who has been a staunch champion advocating for the life of Ms Schindler-Schiavo, capsulized the case for us and it is a hard pill to swallow.

"The details of Terri Schiavo's case, and concern for the precious value of her life, raise important moral and ethical questions which should concern all Americans. Who should decide the fate of a disabled person needing essential medical care and interventions? Are courts really the proper venue for resolving disputes over whether to continue or withhold life-preserving treatment? Should the government be involved at all?"

The Federalist contends, accurately, that this case is about the judiciary protecting its power and supremacy over the executive and legislative branches of our government. That power has consistently been focused on overturning the constitution, to render it toothless and useless and then eventually to order it's execution.

Evidence of that truth is not hard to find. Consider the comments (online at RadioBlogger) made by the Democrat Darling Barbara Boxer at a recent Move.On.org rally held in support of the obstruction efforts by congressional Democrats... "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a superimportant position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

The WSJ Best of the Web has this say about it: "Now, maybe it's a good idea to require 60 votes to confirm a judge, though we don't seem to recall Boxer or any other Democrat suggesting it in 1993-94, when it would have allowed minority Republicans to block Clinton appointees. But the Constitution requires only a majority vote. If Boxer thinks a supermajority would be better, she should propose a constitutional amendment--one that would impose the rule for all time, not just when it's expedient for the Democrats."

As you can see, the eventual eradication of the Constitution is an essential component of the Liberal Manifesto for, as the Federalist points out, our Constitution defines certain rights as God-given (can't you just hear the liberals shudder.) These rights, according to the Constitution are "unalienable." That means the rights of the innocent cannot be surrendered, transferred, abridged, or removed by anyone, not even the courts. The Liberals CANNOT abide this as it interferes with one of their primary goals: replacing God.

"The measure of a society is how they treat the least of us," The Federalist further quotes Kate Adamson (who testified that the removal of her feeding tube caused excruciating pain that she recalled even after recovering from her "permanent vegetative state") She states, "Life is sacred or meaningless, there is nothing inbetween."

Both the House and Senate of the USA as well as Florida have introduced and/or passed bills that supposedly will rectify the injustice of courts being able to kill incapacitated adults that do not have the safeguards and protections of the appeal process (including clemency and pardons) that do the murdering bastards on death row. Unfortunately, liberal opponents have thrown enough obstructions into the process that there is no hope of the bills making their way into law in time to prevent Michael Schiavo from legally killing his wife , succeding now where he allegedly failed to kill her illegally in the first place.)

QUOTES

"The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected -- and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities." --President George W. Bush

"Do we want to reinforce the fear that the infirm are no more than a burden on the healthy? We need to send a message that even in our darkest hours, life is still worth living, that loved ones will come alongside to help, and that doctors will treat pain effectively and compassionately -- not with a lethal prescription." --David Stevens, M.D., executive director of the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association, an alternative to the American Medical Association, which long ago abandoned the Hippocratic oath, especially the part, "First do no harm..."

"Terri Schiavo, and men and women like her, deserve the same due-process rights that death row inmates are granted. When a court is making a life-or-death decision for a disabled person who has been charged with no crime, shouldn't they be afforded independent counsel to speak on their behalf?" --Florida Republican Rep. and physician Dave Weldon, sponsor of the House of Representatives version of the "The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act," which extends federal habeas-corpus protections -- now available to convicted felons -- to innocent disabled persons set to be executed by legal order.

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!